Time A Pushover For Gorbachev Puff

In the approach to the summit there is a big propaganda battle going on between Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev. It's an interesting competition.

Suppose I told you that the No. 1 news magazine in America -- Time -- had just run an exclusive interview with Reagan. Time precedes the interview with a portrait of Reagan. He has -- we are told -- ''naturally controlled energy.'' Reagan, Time tells us, ''dominates a meeting with three extraordinary tools.'' What are Reagan's remarkable tools? Why, his eyes, his hands and his voice.

His eyes -- oh, his eyes. They will ''lock into a listener and not let go until the listener gives some sign of acknowledgment, agreement -- or flinches.'' What else about those eyes? They ''are neither harsh nor kind. They are big and strong, and sometimes quick, too.''

How about Reagan's hands? They ''have a variety of specific functions.'' (Stop the presses!) The right one holds his glasses. But ''the left hand talks.'' It can ''lecture'' or ''declaim'' or ''thump . . . karate style'' -- but ''always quite gently.'' (A gentle karate chop?)

And his voice? It is ''deep, but also quite soft . . . melodious.'' But sometimes, ''without warning, his voice can cut across the room . . . not angry or bullying, just stronger than any other sound in the room.''

Reagan! What a man! Put it all together: ''Occasionally the eyes, the hands, and the voice reach peak power at the same time, and then it is clear why this man is president.''

Oops, sorry. ''General secretary'' -- not ''president.'' The howler above is from Time's cover story on Gorbachev, not Reagan. Time submitted six puff questions in writing in advance to Gorby -- a practice rarely offered to American politicians. Then five top Time journalists spent two hours talking to this remarkable leader who actually has eyes, hands and voice. Their questions make a slow-pitch softball pitcher look like Dwight Gooden.

Here are some of them: What are your impressions of President Reagan? Do U.S. anti-satellite testing and spy-dust charges damage the summit? Do you enjoy mingling with workers? Are people afraid of you? Only one question -- about why the Soviet Union is taking an all-or-nothing position on space weapons -- even half-challenges Gorbachev.

Time did not ask a question about Afghanistan, and why the Soviets are committing genocide there -- a million people already have been killed. They did not ask about human rights in the Soviet Union, did not ask about the health of Andrei Sakharov or Anatoly Scharansky. Time did not ask why the Soviets feel it is all right for them to have space weapons, but not us. Time did not ask about the Soviet repression of Poland. It did not ask why communism has lost its appeal around the world.

Time's editors did not even have the sense of decency to laugh out loud when Gorbachev -- who came to power as the protege of former KGB chief Andropov -- said that his policies ''have led to a . . . flowering of our democracy.'' They did not laugh when Gorbachev sorrowfully noted a global condition where ''hundreds of millions of people go hungry'' -- including those in Afghanistan whose food supply is scorched by the Soviet military.

Would Time interview Reagan without challenging him about his problems -- South Africa, deficits, civil rights?

It has been noted that there is an unfair aspect to the propaganda battle between us and the Soviets. We have a free and critical press; they have a controlled applause factory. That lets them try to play our media like a violin without fear of being undercut at home. We can live with that imbalance, and even prosper. But it is not asking too much of our press to -- at least -- be as critical of our adversaries, as they are of us.

There is much talk in Washington these days about how the Soviets are winning the summit propaganda battle. But sometimes it's no battle. Time has shown it can be a pushover.